The knowledge that the Port of Los Angeles is an even worse polluter than the Port of Oakland will, I'm sure, give great comfort to Jazzmine Jackson as she sucks on her inhaler. And surely she will understand that P of Oakland has more pressing priorities that make it impossible to find the paltry $5 million they promised to spend to ease her suffering and that of thousands of her neighbors. Anyway, she really has no reason to complain......after all there is an environmental group at the Port whose job is to monitor the air quality to be sure it "meets current standards" although they know those are totally inadequate for long term exposure. That data does give ammunition to rebuff local community protests and lawsuits I suppose. I wonder if they ever thought about beating those standards?

Mrgybe accused the Port of Oakland, and by inference, of cutting funding for the air quality mitigation program. I'm glad that mrgybe is reading the Sierra Club Yodeler, perhaps he will find out why Exxon is loathed by the environmental community. But it is perhaps not the most reliable of sources, and mrgybe, you will all be shocked to hear, not the most reliable or balanced of researchers.

I would have been surprised if the Port of Oakland was in breach of its settlement agreement; such agreements are enforceable by the Court, and in the event of violation the party out of compliance is not only forced into compliance, but liable for legal costs. With the NRDC a party to the lawsuit, I had some difficulty imagining such a situation--but I checked. Mrgybe's citation was from 2008--three years after I left the Port and handed on responsibility for administration of these programs to talented and honest people. And, not surprising for an advocacy piece, it is not accurate. The Port has completely expended the money it pledged to repowering trucks, repowered terminal yard equipment, and increased the amount of money that went into cleaning up trucks by securing grants from the local air pollution control district.

But of course the heavy lifting in improving air quality comes from the California Air Resources Board implementing their diesel risk strategy, which requires retrofit or retirement of old diesel equipment. Modern diesel technology reduces particulate emissions by over 90%, but the longevity of old diesel power plants would have left many trucks--and pieces of terminal and construction equipment--in use for another 20-30 years. The Port of Oakland supported CARB's diesel risk strategy, and adopted an ordinance prohibiting older and dirtier trucks from work at the Port. Did Exxon support any of the CARB regulations? What do you think?

Such a record to be proud of. Such a liar, whether by half truth or poor research matters little.

In case mrgybe wants to check what could so easily have been checked without resorting to Wikipedia:

Could crappy research, disdain for public health, and dishonest, arrogant executives have something to do with that.

I hadn't meant this to devolve into a oil-company bashing party, but mrgybe's comments about ethanol as an environmental interest bad idea was just not true. He never indicated what Exxon proposed instead of ethanol as an oxygenate to deal with the public health risk. In my experience in California, Exxon has simply fought virtually every water quality, air quality, and coastal regulation. Often without success, and lost credibility.

Maybe mrgybe wants to calculate Exxon's diesel particulate emissions in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and compare them to the Port of Oakland's trucks? The port owns no trucks, but is paying to clean them up. Exxon owns the ships but... All of the port's have now completely health risk assessments and identified measures where emissions can be reduced. It is transparent, and was performed to the specifications of the Air Resources Board.

Is there anything comparable for Exxon facilities? Or is their brave new world like Texas, where an oil-company friendly governor cut them slack on taxes, safety rules, emissions. We can see the result. No OSHA inspection of the fertilizer company--and they carried the generous insurance coverage of $1 million. That should cover all the damages the lack of regulation caused.

This is a synopsis of a recent post from Berkeley, edited to make it less tediously wordy. Feel free to read the entire post.

mac wrote:

Mrgybe accused the Port of Oakland of cutting funding for the air quality mitigation program. Mrgybe's citation was from 2008. And, not surprising for an advocacy piece (the Sierra Club), it is not accurate. The Port has completely expended the money it pledged. Such a liar, whether by half truth or poor research matters little.

I had ignored it since the point has been made..........people in glass houses should not throw stones. On pollution related matters, the poster's 15 year employer, is definitely in a glass house. However, he is now infesting my email with a repeat of his accusation that I am a liar, so I will respond.

In the post above he dismisses the Sierra Club assertion that the Port of Oakland withdrew it's pledge of $5 million for pollution mitigation and calls me a liar for citing it. How about the Oakland Tribune then?

"Community groups and clean air advocates and regulators were counting on big commitments from the Port of Oakland this fall to slash diesel truck pollution that has contributed to a higher cancer risk in West Oakland. Now they are fuming, saying the city-owned seaport has pulled back rather than pay out for cleaner air, and public health as well as the port's long term financial health may suffer as a result. Oakland port commissioners voted Nov. 19 to indefinitely postpone a planned $5 million contribution to a government pool of grants for owners of old trucks to install diesel soot filters required by the state for trucks that want to keep visiting ports after Jan. 1, 2010."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11150757

In the wake of outrage from citizen/ environmental groups and the local media, a year later the Port grudgingly agreed to reinstate their pledge. Kicking and screaming, the Port was pressured into making some small inroads into the damage they have caused over decades. And yet, their former long time environment manager constantly berates the oil industry for it's environmental response. He should look closer to home.

The liar claims: "people in glass houses should not throw stones" He also completely misstates the results, source of funding, and overall air quality program of the Port of Oakland. Oh if only it were true I would agree with mrgybe. But unlike the oil industry, the Port of Oakland has been a pioneer in reducing air emissions, and as usual mrgybe has taken a news article out of context to misrepresent the facts. It is his usual approach, and at some point he will realize that I won't let such lies lie.

Mrgybe is correct that the Port Board suspended, for several months, an additional $5 million for reducing truck emissions. But it was not part of the $8.9 million that the Port agreed to as part of the expansion project--it was additional funds. All of this happened well after I left the Port, which only matters as to what my role is--he still has the facts wrong. The port helped with the purchase of 70 new trucks with the settlement funds, and the program was so successful that the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency contributed additional funds and eventually a total of approximately $20 million was spent on cleaner trucks--well beyond the Port's commitment, and including the $5 million in additional funds that was restored. In fact, the program essentially ran out trucks to replace and upgrade, and the left over money was transferred to a new shoreside power system to allow the ship engines to be shut down while at berth. The cost of just the electricity for the shoreside power is $90 million. The money left over from the truck program was transferred to the shoreside power system with the written agreement of the West Oakland Neighbors, the parties to the original lawsuit. The net result is that cleaner equipment works on terminal yards, calls at the port terminals, and eventually the ship engines--the largest source of diesel emissions--will be shut down in port. I'm not sure whether or not Exxon has the largest fleet of ships in the world--but they are up there.

Unlike the oil industry, the Port of Oakland is on track to reduce their overall emissions. Ironically for those who hate the government and all government programs, this was done with the active cooperation of the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, who promulgated regulations that gradually phased out older trucks, and additional financing to accelerate the benefits in West Oakland.

Here is from a current report by the Port's Environmental Department to the Board:

Quote:

Maritime Air Quality Improvement Plan (“MAQIP”): Pursuant to Board commitments, Port staff is implementing the MAQIP initiatives in support of regulatory compliance, especially the drayage truck program and shore power at marine terminals. The Environmental Division is managing a maritime operations emissions inventory update and progress report to community, industry and other stakeholders in FY 2014 to assess progress
towards meeting and even exceeding the 2012 diesel emissions reduction goal of ‐65% for on‐ and near‐shore sources.

Mrgybe was just as wrong with his claims about the problems that Chevron faced in Richmond with their expansion project. Mrgybe dismissed the concerns of the community over corrosion, one of the bases for their lawsuit. Those concerns were subsequently validated when a pipe in the refinery, where Chevron had ignored their own safety rules and not replaced, ruptured.

Without listening, understanding is impossible. Without legitimate research you aren't listening, you're just rationalizing--and lying.

mac, don't you think that accusing mrgybe of lying is a bit to much? In my view, he could be accused of misrepresenting, twisting or cherry picking the facts, but such approaches can be expected from a person that has been very dedicated to the oil industry and its goals.

Don't get me wrong, my views generally align more with yours on this topic. In reality, I think most folks recognize that the oil industry is actively fighting against tightening regulations designed to improve emissions and to reduce pollution, and that they will use all avenues available to them to stem the tide of change. Moreover, they will use the legal system for all it's worth to avoid accountability for environmental problems that surface over time in their operations. While they have lost many cases in the past, we all know that they will continue to draw things out in every way using all the legal strategies available to them.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum